Guideline on the Clinical Investigation of Medicinal Products for the Treatment of Axial Spondyloarthritis

Transcription

1 12 October 2017 EMA/CPMP/EWP/4891/03 Rev.1 Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) Guideline on the Clinical Investigation of Medicinal Products for the Treatment of Axial Draft agreed by Rheumatology-Immunology Working Party (RIWP) February 2016 Adopted by CHMP for release for consultation June 2016 Start of public consultation July 2016 End of consultation (deadline for comments) December 2016 Agreed by RIWP July 2017 Adopted by CHMP 12 October 2017 Date of coming into effect 01 May 2018 This guideline replaces Guideline on clinical investigations of medicinal products in the treatment of Axial (EMA/CPMP/EWP/4891/03). Keywords Axial spondyloarthritis, regulatory requirements, AS, nonradiographical axial SpA 30 Churchill Place Canary Wharf London E14 5EU United Kingdom Telephone +44 (0) Facsimile +44 (0) Send a question via our website An agency of the European Union European Medicines Agency, Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

2 Guideline on the Clinical Investigation of Medicinal Products for the Treatment of Axial Table of Contents Executive summary Introduction (background) Scope Legal basis and relevant guidelines Patient selection Assessment of efficacy Efficacy criteria/treatment goals Methods to assess efficacy criteria Study design Pharmacology studies Pharmacokinetics Pharmacodynamics Interactions Therapeutic studies Exploratory and dose finding studies Confirmatory studies Safety aspects Specific side effects Long-term side effects Studies in special populations Studies in elderly patients Studies in pediatric patients Definitions/abbreviations References EMA/CPMP/EWP/4891/03 Rev.1 Page 2/16

3 Executive summary This document is a revision of the Guideline on clinical investigation of medicinal products for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (CPMP/EWP/4891/03) which came into effect in May It should be considered as general guidance on the development of medicinal products for the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis and should be read in conjunction with other European and ICH guidelines which may apply to this disease area and patient population. The current revision has taken into account that clinical practice has evolved since publication of the previous guideline and acknowledges that patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axial SpA) who do not fulfill the modified New York (mny) criteria of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) can present with disease activity and functional impairment similar to those observed in patients with AS. These patients, captured under the term non-radiographic axial SpA, are considered in this revised CHMP guideline. The new guideline also reviews relevant treatment goals, new outcome measures for the treatment as well as the design of confirmatory trials in the light of the currently available treatment options. 1. Introduction (background) The concept of spondyloarthritis (SpA) comprises a group of diseases which share common clinical and genetic features, and includes ankylosing spondylitis (AS), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), arthritis/spondylitis with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), reactive arthritis, as well as undifferentiated SpA. All of these can present with a predominantly peripheral or axial arthritis. The most characteristic genetic risk factor shared among these diseases is HLA-B27 Ankylosing spondylitis is the most frequent subtype of axial SpA and is diagnosed according to the mny criteria, which requires the presence of radiographic sacroiliitis. It is now well established that patients with axial SpA who do not meet radiographic criteria for sacroiliitis according to the mny criteria experience a significant burden of disease that is comparable to patients with well-defined AS. Given the average diagnostic delay of 11 years in AS, in 2009 ASAS (Assessment in SpondyloArthritis International Society) proposed criteria defining the entity of axial spondyloarthritis (axial SpA) which includes a broader set of patients than the 1984 mny criteria for AS. The new group is captured under the term non-radiographic axial SpA and can be identified by the presence of clinical features of axial SpA combined with either imaging evidence (active sacroiliitis seen on the MRI scan) or HLA-B27 positivity ( clinical arm ). These criteria seek for an earlier recognition of relevant axial SpA patients compared to the previously used mny criteria for AS. Axial SpA defines chronic inflammatory disease that involves primarily the sacroiliac joints and the axial skeleton. It is a largely genetically determined disease which has a strong association with HLA- B27. Although prevalence data specifically for non-radiographic-axial SpA are limited for European cohorts, existing data suggest that the prevalence of axial SpA (including AS and non-radiographic forms) is estimated to be %. The prevalence of AS is estimated around 0.1 % % of the European population. While AS is more common in males (male to female ratio is estimated to be 2-3:1), women are slightly more often affected compared to men in the non-radiographic-axial SpA stage. Axial SpA tends to be more severe in men, in whom the spine is more frequently involved. Clinical manifestations of axial SpA usually begin in late adolescence or early adulthood (mean age of onset 26 years) and onset after age 45 is rare. Clinical manifestations include lower back pain with predominant nocturnal pain, morning stiffness and impaired physical function. Also chest pain, pain and swelling of peripheral joints and extra-articular tenderness may occur as well as several EMA/CPMP/EWP/4891/03 Rev.1 Page 3/16

4 extraskeletal manifestations such as anterior uveitis, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel disease. Cardiac conduction defects and aortic valve disease or renal disease, mainly in the form of secondary renal amyloidosis, may also be associated. Axial SpA is a chronic disease that causes a substantial amount of pain and disability. Functional limitations relate to inflammation in the early phases of disease but also increase with duration of disease due to new bone formation. Although most patients are able to maintain functional capacity, there are also some patients with progressing disease who rapidly develop ankylosis at a young age. There are no solid prognostic parameters besides early radiographic progression, but male sex, MRI inflammation in sacroiliac joints and spine, increased CRP, and hip involvement early in the disease course have been associated with poor prognosis. According to clinical guidelines, physical therapy and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) comprise the first line treatment in axial SpA. Physical therapy has a positive effect on stiffness and on spinal mobility and even on pain. NSAIDs are used to control pain with good response in up to 50-70% of axial SpA patients. So, due to their high symptomatic efficacy and possible disease-modifying properties, NSAIDs are considered the treatment of choice for the majority of patients with axial SpA and if tolerated, these are usually maintained as background therapy in patients with insufficient response. Intra-articular corticosteroids may be used for sacroiliac or peripheral joint inflammation whereas systemic corticosteroids in general are of little benefit. Traditional non-biological disease modifying antirheumatic drugs are of limited value with the exception of sulfasalazine, which is used and has shown some effect on peripheral disease and extraarticular manifestations, but with no evidence of effect in severe disease or in patients with substantial spinal involvement. In contrast, the treatment with biological medicinal products (e.g. anti-tnf, anti-il 17) is recommended for patients with persistent high disease activity despite conventional treatment with NSAIDs and physiotherapy. 2. Scope Guidance is provided on the clinical development and evaluation of medicinal products for the systemic treatment of axial SpA, including both ankylosing spondylitis and non-radiographic axial SpA forms. 3. Legal basis and relevant guidelines This Guideline should be read in conjunction with the introduction and general principles of Annex I to Directive 2001/83/EC, as amended, and all other relevant EU and ICH guidelines. These include, but are not limited to: Dose Response Information to Support Drug Registration (ICH E4) Note for Guidance on Population Exposure: The Extent of Population Exposure to assess Clinical Safety (ICH E1) Note for Guidance on Studies in Support of Special Populations: Geriatrics (ICH Topic E 7) and the Questions and Answers - EMEA/CHMP/ICH/604661/2009; Guideline on Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials (CPMP/ICH/363/96) Guideline on the Choice of control group in clinical trials (CPMP/ICH/364/96) Points to Consider on Multiplicity Issues in Clinical Trials (CPMP/EWP/908/99) EMA/CPMP/EWP/4891/03 Rev.1 Page 4/16

5 Points to consider on Adjustment for Baseline covariates (CPMP/EWP/2863/99) Guideline on Missing Data in Confirmatory Clinical Trials (CPMP/EWP/1776/99 Rev.1) Guideline on the investigation of drug interactions (CPMP/EWP/560/95. Rev. 1) Guideline on clinical investigation of medicinal products for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (EMA/CHMP/239770/2014 Rev.2) 4. Patient selection Both AS and non-radiographic-axial SpA represent the spectrum of axial SpA, with the presence or absence of radiographic sacroiliitis as the only differentiating clinical feature. In fact, a significant proportion of patients with non-radiographic-axial SpA will not progress to AS despite having been diagnosed for several years. Therefore, medicinal products intended for the treatment of axial SpA should provide efficacy and safety data in both, patients with AS and patients with non-radiographic axial SpA disease. Patients to be included in clinical trials should be selected according to generally accepted classification criteria. Both groups of patients can be studied in the same study provided that these are represented in adequate numbers that will permit sub-group analysis and also evaluation of consistency with the overall results of the study. Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) The 1984 modified New York classification criteria are accepted criteria to diagnose AS with a high degree of specificity. Using these criteria the diagnosis relies strongly on the existence of changes in the sacroiliac joints exceeding grade 2 unilateral. The inter and intra-observer variability in the interpretation of radiographs is a known problem which may affect the specificity of the classification criteria, particularly regarding Grade 2 or Grade 3 abnormalities. This should be addressed in the planning of the study in order to accurately document the existence of a grade II degree in sacroiliac changes. Non-radiographic axial SpA The 2009 ASAS criteria defines a new group captured under the term non-radiographic axial SpA and can be identified by the presence of clinical features of axial SpA combined with either active sacroilitis seen on the MRI scan ( imaging evidence) or HLA-B27 positivity ( clinical arm ). As these represent different phenotypes, stratification by the presence of clinical or imaging features may be considered. These criteria have been validated and accepted for the selection of patients in clinical trials. The main drawback of the ASAS criteria for selecting patients with non-radiographic-axial SpA is the high false positive rate when applying these criteria in settings with a low prevalence of axial SpA. It is noted that these criteria are applied to patients who have inflammatory back pain and a clinical diagnosis of axial SpA. Patients meeting these criteria should be included into the trial only if other diseases can be reasonably excluded. Additional restrictions for inclusion such as the presence of objective signs of inflammation at baseline based on biomarkers may be implemented, i.e. MRI inflammatory findings by central reading and/or a positive (centrally determined) CRP that cannot be explained by other reasons than axial SpA. CRP remains an important marker for selecting patients who may respond to NSAIDs or anti-tnf. Other potentially prognostic biomarkers that may have utility for patient selection should be considered. EMA/CPMP/EWP/4891/03 Rev.1 Page 5/16

6 Baseline characterization of the studied population Regardless of the finally included population, i.e. AS and/or non-radiographic axial SpA, patient s characteristics should be well documented: demographics, duration of disease, preferable specified since date of diagnosis and symptom onset, previous and concomitant therapies, concomitant diseases including those specific diseases related to axial SpA such as anterior uveitis, psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease or cardiac disease (conduction, valve problems). All specific diagnostic actions taken by physicians before including patients (e.g. screening for latent tuberculosis) should be described in the selection criteria of the protocol. In addition, there are some characteristics that may be considered in order to identify subpopulations where the benefit risk ratio of the new product might be different, e.g. the severity and extent of the disease, the disease activity, the spinal and peripheral joint involvement and the lack of response to previous treatments. Patients should be well characterized with respect to previous treatments received for axial SpA. Based on the current standard of care, possible target patient groups that can be included in clinical trials are patients naive to or previously treated with biological medicinal products. The consideration of a patient as inadequate responder to NSAIDs (naive to biological alternatives) or to one or more biological medicinal products (i.e. biological insufficient responders) requires documentation of the lack of response with appropriate doses and treatment durations based on generally agreed definitions at the clinical practice level. The absence of HLA-B27 should not be an exclusion criterion. Disease activity at the moment of the enrolment in the trials should be distinguished from the level of damage and functional disability reached by the patients due to the evolution of the disease until that moment. Activity of disease should be assessed by means of validated scales and considering several aspects of the disease such as pain or stiffness. The use of composite simple scales such as the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) or the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) is considered appropriate and may be complemented with the measurement of individual symptoms (e.g. pain) or global patient assessments of the disease with visual analogue scales. Prior to inclusion patients should be required to have a certain degree of disease activity in order to show a sufficient treatment response (e.g. ASDAS 2.1 or BASDAI 4 and nocturnal/spinal pain as measured by either visual analogue scale (VAS) 4 cm or numerical rating scale (NRS) 4 at baseline). A minimum duration of active disease should be established before entering into the trial Special attention should be paid to other patient characteristics that might be relevant depending on the mode of action of the product. In this sense, the levels of serologic markers of inflammation such as C reactive protein (CRP) or the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), the presence of inflammatory findings by MRI, among others can be considered. In addition to the disease activity at a given time, the severity of the disease is determined by other characteristics such as the level of irreversible structural damage, the involvement of peripheral joints and other organs, associated diseases and the unresponsiveness to previous treatments. At present, there is no a composite scoring system to differentiate severity grades encompassing all of the elements noted. Concomitant medication for axial SpA should be discontinued or remain on a stable dose for a sufficient period of time, depending on the drug, before randomization. EMA/CPMP/EWP/4891/03 Rev.1 Page 6/16

7 Subgroup analyses accounting for known prognostic factors (some of which will be stratification factors in the randomization) should be predefined in the study protocol, according to the recommendations made in the relevant guidelines. The selection of the most relevant subgroups should be made on a case by case basis. It is expected that consistent effects in the relevant subgroups are shown. Any discrepancies might require consideration when interpreting the study results. It is recommended that stratified randomization is used to reduce the risk of imbalances in important prognostic factors such as prior use of biological medicinal products and/or the level of activity, and/ or, presence or absence of objective signs of inflammation defined by positive MRI and/or elevated CRP. Stratification by the presence of AS vs non-radiographic axial SpA should be considered where appropriate. Depending on the mechanism of action of the medicinal products, other relevant factors might be considered. 5. Assessment of efficacy 5.1. Efficacy criteria/treatment goals From a regulatory point of view, the following goals of a therapy can be distinguished: 1) Improvement of symptoms and signs such as pain and stiffness, 2) Improvement of physical function, 3) Slowing or prevention of structural damage, The main efficacy end point will depend on the type of product and the intended therapeutic claim. Medicinal products intended to improve symptoms/physical function Improvement of sign and symptoms and improvement/maintenance of physical function are key relevant endpoints in all axial SpA patient groups. Different domains may be assessed separately or using composite indexes that bring together the assessment of several domains. The use of a composite measure is an appropriate way to assess the efficacy of a product. For this purpose only validated composite endpoints are acceptable as primary or secondary endpoints.. It is very important that response criteria are adequately justified, chosen before the study is started and thresholds are predefined. Primary endpoints The ASAS Response Criteria (ASAS 20, ASAS 40) have been extensively used in clinical trials. These are defined as an improvement of at least 20% or 40%, respectively, and an absolute improvement of at least 10 or 20 units, respectively, on a 0-100mm scale in at least 3 of the following domains: patient global assessment, pain, function, and morning stiffness with no worsening of the remaining domain Although the percentage of patients reaching an ASAS 20 response has been accepted as primary endpoint for a number of products, a higher magnitude of the clinical response are expected for biological medicinal products or products from a new therapeutic class. Thus, the ASAS 40 response criteria would be the preferred primary endpoint. This index has been already used in several trials and may be considered an appropriate primary efficacy end point to assess clinically relevant responses. EMA/CPMP/EWP/4891/03 Rev.1 Page 7/16

8 Other validated and accepted methods to assess disease activity and physical function include the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS). In order to facilitate interpretation of the clinical relevance of the observed effect, responder analyses are preferable over mean absolute changes, but both should be provided. Four disease activity states have been defined: inactive (ASDAS <1.3), moderate ( 1.3 to <2.1), high ( 2.1 to 3.5) and very high (>3.5). ASDAS-CII (clinically important improvement) is defined as a decrease from baseline in the ASDAS score 1.1, and ASDAS- MI (major improvement) is defined as a decrease from baseline in ASDAS 2.0. As more effective therapies become available for axial SpA, disease remission is increasingly regarded as an appropriate therapeutic goal. Complete remission in axial SpA has not formally been defined yet and may not be a realistic goal. Partial remission or low disease activity, based on generally accepted criteria, i.e. ASDAS inactive disease (ID) <1.3, ASDAS partial remission <2.1, ASAS partial remission (a value of 2 (on a 0 to 10 scale) present in each domain), BASDAI<3, are more realistic while still relevant goals and have been used in clinical trials in axial SpA. Secondary endpoints Other measures of symptoms and physical function BASDAI is a composite index that includes the assessment by the patients of their symptoms of pain, discomfort, stiffness and fatigue. It is a widely used measure of disease activity and its changes with treatment should be assessed. The percentage of patients with clinical response as measured by an improvement of at least a 50% from the baseline score in BASDAI is considered useful to judge the clinical benefit of a treatment. Other secondary end points may be the individual components of the ASAS instrument as well as individual assessments of the main domains of the disease, including pain and physical function. Additional endpoints may be the ASAS 20, 40 (if not included as primary endpoint), or the ASAS 5/6 as well as the peripheral tender joints and swollen joint count (change and percent change from baseline)if not selected as primary endpoints. Spinal mobility The ASAS composite does not include the assessment of the spine mobility, which is a relevant efficacy parameter in axial SpA. Thus, if the ASAS index is chosen as primary endpoint, it should be supplemented with the assessment of spinal mobility as a secondary endpoint. Patient reported outcomes Patient reported outcomes and quality of life evaluation may also be considered as secondary endpoints. Acute phase reactants Although levels of C reactive protein (CRP) or the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) may be related to the activity of the disease and its prognosis, there are no data to support them as useful surrogate variables to assess efficacy in axial SpA but can provide useful supportive information on the treatment effects. However, CRP is considered important to establish the presence of an active disease. Peripheral joints and entheses EMA/CPMP/EWP/4891/03 Rev.1 Page 8/16

9 Depending on the degree of peripheral joint involvement the assessment of peripheral joints may be of value in measuring efficacy of products to treat axial SpA. The efficacy of the product on the entheseal involvement should be always evaluated in the patients presenting with this clinical manifestation. Exploratory endpoints Extra-articular manifestations Given the prevalence of well-known extra-articular manifestations such as uveitis, inflammatory bowel disease and psoriasis, documentation of history (presence of) these manifestations and new occurrence or worsening of these manifestations should be recorded. Additional goal in the prevention of structural damage It is highly encouraged to systematically monitor structural changes even in studies aimed to study the effect on symptoms and physical function. The relationship between inflammation and new bone formation in axial SpA remains unclear. This may be explained by the persistence of radiographic progression in patients who appear to otherwise respond well to treatment based on symptom control and quality of life. To date, recent treatment advances have not demonstrated robust efficacy in randomized controlled clinical trials in terms of inhibition of structural damage (either osteodestructive or osteoproliferative changes). Thus, prevention of structural damage is considered a relevant endpoint to be assessed but not a requirement for approval Methods to assess efficacy criteria Pain Pain is adequately measured by means of patient self answered VAS. Patient should be asked for both specific pain at night as well as overall pain due to Axial SpA, and these should be reported separately. The question should refer to a recent past period (e.g. the past week or the past 48 hours). Additional measures of pain may be provided by three out of the six items of the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) that ask for pain and discomfort during the last week. The three items assess 1) overall pain in neck, back or hip; 2) overall level of pain/swelling in joints other than neck, back or hip and 3)overall discomfort from any areas tender to touch or pressure. Pain can also be assessed by 2 out of the 6 items of the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS), which assess back pain and peripheral pain/swelling. Spinal stiffness Spinal morning stiffness that improves with movement is a relevant symptom related to inflammation in axial SpA. The BASDAI index provides a good assessment of stiffness through the combination of two of its questions. One item measures the intensity of morning stiffness by means of either a VAS ranging from 0 to 10 cm or a NRS ranging from 0 to 10 and the last item asks for the duration of stiffness from time of awakening. Both questions are referred to the situation during the previous week. The ASDAS scale also includes one item to assess duration of morning stiffness. Physical function EMA/CPMP/EWP/4891/03 Rev.1 Page 9/16

10 There are several acceptable instruments to measure physical function and its changes in patients suffering from axial SpA. The most widely known instrument is a patient administered questionnaire: the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI).The BASFI consists of 10 questions regarding ability to perform specific tasks as measured by visual analogue scales (VAS). It appears that the BASFI is more sensitive to changes and easier to use than other instruments. Patient global assessment Patient subjective perception is an important complementary variable that may be measured by means of a visual analogue scale, asking the patients to inform on his/her global status during a recent past period (for example last week). Spinal Mobility Spinal mobility is of great importance in axial SpA and constitutes the most organ specific domain. Although it may be difficult to detect changes in spinal mobility on the short term and often more reflecting disease severity over time than ongoing inflammation, spinal mobility is considered an important measure to assess efficacy. Several instruments have been developed and a combination of them may be used in clinical trials. Chest expansion, modified Schober test, lateral spinal flexion and occiput to wall distance are amongst the most known methods to measure spinal mobility, however with substantially varying performance and reliability. The Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) is a composite measure of spinal mobility and hip function that has been used in several clinical trials and is also an acceptable method. The addition of chest expansion measurements might be considered if the BASMI index is used, as this is not included in the composite. Structural damage The assessment of structural damage and progression is mainly based on radiography. Osteodestructive and osteoproliferative changes are detectable and acute and chronic changes need to be differentiated. Structural damage may be detected by conventional radiographs, by MRI/T1 weighted sequences and by DEXA or quantitative CT measurements. There are several radiological scores and recently, based on consensus by experts in the field, the modified SASSS has been chosen as the preferred validated and sensitive method to assess radiological changes. However, in order to assess the relevance of any changes, imaging methods should be supported by a demonstration of an effect on the clinical consequences of the slowing or prevention of the structural damage (i.e. an effect on spinal mobility). Radiographs should be taken on fixed and predefined time points and be assessed by at least two assessors blinded for the allocation of the patient to type of treatment, chronological sequence of the radiographs and initial assessment(s) of the other assessor(s). Mean changes from baseline of the total score should be reported. Additionally, responder analyses of subjects without radiographic progression need to be provided. The method for obtaining the final score should be described in detail (e.g. consensus) and be predefined. Although not fully validated to assess changes over time, MRI of spine and sacroiliac joints can be used to assess signs and sequels of inflammation on imaging; it is particularly useful in the pre-radiographic EMA/CPMP/EWP/4891/03 Rev.1 Page 10/16

11 stage. Validated instruments such as the SPARCC or others should be used for the measurement of MRI changes Peripheral joints and entheses Efficacy in peripheral joints may be measured as the count of the swollen or tender joints based on the 44 joint counts without grading or weighting. The value in measuring efficacy in peripheral joints depends on the degree of involvement. Several indices have been developed in order to provide a feasible method to assess enthesopathy. The MASES index based on 13 entheses may be an acceptable instrument but also other more comprehensive measures if validated and reliable might be appropriate. Quality of life (QoL) It may be assessed either using some specific scales (e.g. ASQoL, ASAS Health Index) or general instruments (e.g. SF-36, FACIT-Fatigue, EQ-5D, or WPAI-GH).The use of accepted multidimensional scales assessing QoL may provide complementary information to the efficacy demonstrated by the main variables. These multidimensional scales are preferred over specific physical QoL scales that are closely related to the improvement of symptoms and physical function. 6. Study design 6.1. Pharmacology studies Pharmacokinetics The pharmacokinetic properties of the medicinal product should be thoroughly investigated in accordance with relevant guidelines regarding interactions, special populations and specific quality aspects (locally applied drugs, proteins and monoclonal antibodies) Pharmacodynamics The pharmacodynamic properties of the medicinal product should be investigated following existing guidelines. The mechanism of action should be investigated and discussed in relation to other relevant drugs that are available Interactions In accordance with the existing guidelines, interaction studies should be performed with concomitant drugs likely to be co-administered in clinical practice (e.g. NSAIDs, conventional DMARDs) Therapeutic studies Exploratory and dose finding studies Specific dose response studies should be performed in patients with axial SpA. There are several antecedents of different response to medicinal products in patients with AS compared to the same product in other rheumatic diseases (i.e. rheumatoid arthritis) or other AS-related non-articular disorders (i.e. inflammatory intestinal disease). Therefore, dose guidance provided by previous studies in other related disorders is of limited value. EMA/CPMP/EWP/4891/03 Rev.1 Page 11/16

12 Whenever appropriate and depending on the mechanism of action, efforts should be made to examine different doses or intervals according to the respective patient characteristics (e.g. disease activity). Placebo controlled parallel group studies are recommended. Either the ASAS 20 or 40 composite indexes are appropriate measures for the exploratory trials and short duration trials (e.g weeks) may be enough to demonstrate efficacy on symptoms of the disease Confirmatory studies Medicinal Products with a claim of improvement of symptoms and physical function Design elements Conventional treatment of axial SpA consists of NSAID combined with physical therapy, which are enough to control pain in most patients as well as to improve physical function. Therefore, new products belonging to therapeutic classes other than NSAIDs are expected to be tested in patients non-responder (or intolerant) to NSAIDs (naive to biological alternatives) or to one or more biological medicinal products (e.g. biological insufficient responders). Patients with insufficient control of their symptoms on NSAIDs, who are regularly taking them as part of their axial SpA therapy, should continue these treatments if tolerated provided that they are on a stable dose before randomization. There are no particular requirements for other background medications, i.e. conventional DMARDs, as their use is expected to be limited in axial SpA. Changes in the concomitant standard therapy should be carefully documented and its impact on results analyzed based on a pre-established plan. Patients with insufficient response to NSAIDs (naïve to biological medicinal products) Studies should have a randomized, double blind, parallel group design. Efficacy of products claiming improvement in symptoms and disease activity or function are generally established by means of placebo controlled trials that may well be add-on trials where all patients receive physical therapy and NSAIDs. Products belonging to new therapeutic classes may need also comparison against an accepted active comparator (e.g. anti TNF treatments) for the target population, in order to properly assess the relative benefit risk balance of the new product. A three-arm trial is recommended, particularly when biological naive patients are to be studied. Patients with insufficient response to biological medicinal products Studies should have a randomized, double blind, parallel group design. Efficacy of products claiming improvement in symptoms and disease activity or function can be established by means of placebo controlled, parallel group and add-on trials, where patients receive concomitant conventional treatment. Alternatively, an either superiority or non-inferiority active controlled trial where patients are randomized to another standard biological treatment (e.g. another TNFi besides the one which the patients was previously an inadequate responder) or to the new medicinal product, both on top of concomitant conventional therapy, could be a possible design. Patient selection/target population Medicinal products intended for the treatment of axial SpA should provide efficacy and safety data in both patients with AS and patients with non-radiographic SpA disease, otherwise appropriate restrictions in the indication will be applied. These patients could be studied in the same trial provided EMA/CPMP/EWP/4891/03 Rev.1 Page 12/16

13 these are predefined subgroups with sufficient representation to permit analysis and evaluation of consistency with the overall results of the study. Depending on the intended target population, patients naïve to and/or previously treated but with insufficient response to biological medicinal products can be studied. Preferable, these should be studied in separate clinical trials unless scientifically justified. If included in a single study, adequate provisions should be included in the planned statistical analysis for separate examination of treatment effects in each subgroup. Patients with a sufficient degree of disease activity should be included to have a sensitive population to assess the effect on disease activity. Patients who have previously been on a biological medicinal product can be randomized following an appropriate wash-out period. Choice of endpoints Medicinal Products for the treatment of axial SpA are expected to improve symptoms and physical function. For the recommended primary endpoints, see Section 5.1. The optimal timing for the primary endpoint assessment depends on the expected extent of response induced by the product. For products other than NSAIDs (e.g. TNF inhibitors, other biological-dmards), the primary endpoint can be assessed between 12 and 24 weeks. It is expected that a concomitant improvement in spinal mobility is shown. Axial SpA is a chronic disease and therefore, symptomatic treatment is expected to be maintained on the long term. Therefore, although efficacy may be demonstrated in weeks trial, maintenance of the effect in longer trials (e.g. 1 year) should be demonstrated. Despite an adequate control of symptoms residual inflammation may lead to structural progression. Therefore, monitoring of structural changes in the long term is encouraged. In addition, once resolution of inflammation has been achieved, the possibility of using a reduced dose, or an increased dosing interval or even to stop treatment while maintaining disease control, may be valuable information for prescribers and its investigation is encouraged. These data can be generated in a post-approval setting Slowing or prevention of structural damage Confirmatory trials to demonstrate an effect on prevention of structural damage and subsequent function, spinal mobility and disability should be parallel group controlled trials of long duration (e.g. at least 2 years). Trials should be ideally double blind placebo controlled trials. However, it is acknowledged that such a long duration of a placebo controlled trial may not be acceptable due to ethical concerns. From a therapeutic point of view, patients with mild disease activity may be enrolled in such a long trial as an add-on trial over standard therapy with NSAIDs and physical therapy if needed. However, depending on the type of product (i.e. frequent/painful parenteral administrations) such a long placebo controlled trial may also have feasibility problems. On the other hand, this population may not be suitable to demonstrate prevention of structural damage due to their slow progression. Patients with severe disease activity cannot be maintained in a placebo-controlled trial for a long period because of the availability of effective therapies other than NSAIDs (i.e. biological DMARDs). Therefore, alternative designs should be explored. A possible alternative may be a trial with a EMA/CPMP/EWP/4891/03 Rev.1 Page 13/16

14 randomized delay of starting of the active treatment. Differences between groups may be sustained at the end of the 2 or 3 years period reflecting the difference in the start of treatment. Slowing of structural progression is currently not an accepted surrogate for long term clinical benefit. Although there is indirect evidence that, by favorably modifying the natural history of axial SpA in terms of structural changes, long-term clinical benefit will occur in a large proportion of patients, it would be expected that an applicant will provide additional evidence to support this surrogacy. 7. Safety aspects 7.1. Specific side effects Prior to licensing, the safety database should be sufficient to characterize the safety profile of the medicinal product. A sufficiently robust and extensive safety database is required in order to balance benefits and risks. Safety data from relevant trials in other indications may be supportive. The analyses of safety data should particularly focus on specific adverse effects related to the mode of action or risks known for the specific substance class (e.g. for TNF-alpha blocker and other biological medicinal products: increased infectious risk, malignancies, and infusion and injection site reactions). Some of these specific adverse effects might occur after drug discontinuation and should be evaluated and documented for an appropriate period post treatment. With drug substances severely affecting important physiologic organ functions, the early detection of the comprehensive adverse reaction profile for any newly introduced drug substance and especially any newly introduced therapeutic class presents a considerable challenge. Therefore it is clearly required that the general principles to achieve this are applied and efficiently introduced to the development of any new drug product to treat axial SpA. In addition, clinical trials may evaluate immune system function, e.g. serum immunoglobulins and lymphocyte subsets, as well as assessing immunogenicity for biologicals in order to better characterize the long-term safety consequences of any adverse findings Long-term side effects The safety database to be submitted for assessing a new product should be sufficiently large taking into consideration the mechanism of action, safety profile and co-morbidities of the patients. When axial SpA is an additional indication for an already approved product or a product under investigation in other indications, safety data obtained in trials in other indications can be considered as supportive, provided that the dosage regimen is the same, concomitant medication and population is expected to behave similarly (e.g. rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis). Considering the need for confirmatory trials for efficacy as well as the rest of studies specific in Axial SpA, it is possible that efficacy trials may provide also controlled safety data Taking into consideration the chronicity of the disease, and the need for long term treatment, longer than 12-month observation periods may be more appropriate, particularly for new medicinal products (e.g months). Thus, safety assessment should be consistent with standard CHMP requirements for safety data on long-term treatments. Detailed RMP s will need to be drawn up tailored to the likely risks and knowledge of the product. EMA/CPMP/EWP/4891/03 Rev.1 Page 14/16

15 8. Studies in special populations 8.1. Studies in elderly patients Separate efficacy studies are not necessary in the elderly, but no age restrictions should be applied in clinical trials in Axial SpA in order to have an adequate representation of elderly patients in trials. Available data should be reported separately for patients aged 65-74, and 85 and older. The elderly merit particular attention with regard to safety, see Note for Guidance on Studies in Support of Special Populations: Geriatrics (ICH Topic E 7). Available data should be reported separately for patients aged 65-74, and 85 and older Studies in pediatric patients The requirements for the demonstration of efficacy and safety in the pediatric population are established in the EU JIA Guideline. 9. Definitions/abbreviations Axial SpA: a broader term that covers both patients non-radiographic Axial SpA and patients with AS. Non-radiographic Axial SpA: axial spondyloarthritis, which requires clinical features in combination with presence of imaging findings of sacroiliits by MRI, and/or HLA B27 AS: ankylosing spondylitis, a subset of axial spondyloarthritis which requires the presence of radiographic sacroiliitis mny criteria: modified New York Criteria for axial spondyloarthritis, includes clinical criteria (low back pain ( 3 months, improved by exercise and not relieved by rest), limitation of lumbar spine in sagittal and frontal planes, limitation of chest expansion (relative to normal values corrected for age and sex) plus radiological criteria (bilateral grade 2-4 sacroiliitis or unilateral 3-4 sacroiliitis). Fulfillment of the mny criteria requires the presence of one of the radiological findings AND any clinical criteria. EMA/CPMP/EWP/4891/03 Rev.1 Page 15/16

16 10. References 1. Rudwaleit M, van derheijde D, Landewé R, Listing J, Akkoc N, Brandt J, et al. The development of Assessment of International Society (ASAS) classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis (Part II): validation and final selection. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68(6): Rudwaleit M, van derheijde D, Landewé R, Akkoc N, Brandt J, Chou CT, et al. The Assessment of International Society classification criteria for peripheral spondyloarthritis and for spondyloarthritis in general. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70(1): Van den Berg R, Barakalios X, Braun J, van der Heijde D. First update of the current evidence for the management of ankylosing spondylitis with non-pharmacological treatment and non-biologic drugs: a systematic literature review for the ASAS/EULAR management recommendations in Ankylosing Spondylitis. Rheumatology 2012;51: Chen J, Liu C. Sulfasalazine for ankylosing spondylitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Chen J, Liu C, Lin J. Methotrexate for ankylosing spondylitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev van der Heijde D, Ramiro S, Landewé R, et al 2016 update of the ASAS-EULAR management recommendations for axial spondyloarthritis Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Published Online First: 13 January doi: /annrheumdis Georg Schett, et al. Structural damage in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis: traditional views, novel insights gained from TNF blockade and concepts for the future. Arthritis research and therapy 2011, 13 (Suppl 1): 54 EMA/CPMP/EWP/4891/03 Rev.1 Page 16/16